Hot Topics is open from 8:30 AM - 4 PM ET Mon - Fri.

The message board is closed between the hours of 4pm ET Friday and 8:30am ET Monday.As always, the Board will be open to read and those who have those privileges can still send private messages and post to Profiles.

Bill Nye the Science Guy to Debate Creationist

TV science host Bill Nye has agreed to debate Ken Ham, the Director of the Creation Museum in Kentucky. As someone who accepts the overwhelming evidence of evolution, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, a large percentage of the population still believes in creationism and deny evolution. However, in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists, there is no debate and no need to dignify creationist claims.

I've never understood why they have to be mutually exclusive. I can fully accept Darwinian evolution(the popular translation of his theory is not always what he said) as fact and still believe that there is a Creator who set everything in motion--no problem (but then, I don't read the bible with a fundamentalist or evangelical point of view).

Bill Nye is a fun, interesting scientist (I understood carbon dating from his 3 minute explanation better than I did from 5 science classes--3 at university level), but I can't help thinking he is going to come off as strident if he does this. I kind of agree with you, Tyrion: it might be better for him to roll his eyes (figuratively) and move on with his work on global climate change.

I've never understood why they have to be mutually exclusive. I can fully accept Darwinian evolution(the popular translation of his theory is not always what he said) as fact and still believe that there is a Creator who set everything in motion--no problem (but then, I don't read the bible with a fundamentalist or evangelical point of view).

Bill Nye is a fun, interesting scientist (I understood carbon dating from his 3 minute explanation better than I did from 5 science classes--3 at university level), but I can't help thinking he is going to come off as strident if he does this. I kind of agree with you, Tyrion: it might be better for him to roll his eyes (figuratively) and move on with his work on global climate change.

Click to expand...

I'm with you, I don't really understand why there has to be a mutually exclusive aspect to this. I get upset with people who totally ignore scientific evidence and fact and take a hard line (like the Earth is 6,000 years old people). But there is really a lot of flexibility here. You can believe all the science and then also believe that a higher power put all of that into motion. Just don't be ignorant and claim all of the science is wrong.

I've never understood why they have to be mutually exclusive. I can fully accept Darwinian evolution(the popular translation of his theory is not always what he said) as fact and still believe that there is a Creator who set everything in motion--no problem (but then, I don't read the bible with a fundamentalist or evangelical point of view).

Bill Nye is a fun, interesting scientist (I understood carbon dating from his 3 minute explanation better than I did from 5 science classes--3 at university level), but I can't help thinking he is going to come off as strident if he does this. I kind of agree with you, Tyrion: it might be better for him to roll his eyes (figuratively) and move on with his work on global climate change.

Click to expand...

There is still a significant portion of the population that believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old and deny every bit of evidence to the contrary like carbon dating. The same is true with evolution. There is still a perception that there is a debate about this when there really isn't. It's the fundamentalist view that he's debating against.

There is still a significant portion of the population that believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old and deny every bit of evidence to the contrary like carbon dating. The same is true with evolution. There is still a perception that there is a debate about this when there really isn't. It's the fundamentalist view that he's debating against.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that. It's a tightrope walk, though, and not many people go into it with an open mind. My concern is that by wading into the morass of feelings and convictions involved here, he will lose credibility on the things more easily 'proven', for that same portion of the population you address.

Don't get me wrong--I admire the hell out of him. I'd just hate to see him waste time and energy better spent elsewhere.

There is still a significant portion of the population that believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old and deny every bit of evidence to the contrary like carbon dating. The same is true with evolution. There is still a perception that there is a debate about this when there really isn't. It's the fundamentalist view that he's debating against.

Click to expand...

BTW, one of my best friends is one of those '6000 year' people *smdh* We had one good discussion, I heard an excruciating explanation of dinosaurs, and we had to agree to disagree and not broach the topic again. People CAN change, though--once upon a time her kids weren't allowed to read/watch Harry Potter because it promoted witchcraft *headslap*, and now they devour GoT--lol.

I know Bill Nye. My husband worked with him at KCTS. He's one of the smartest people we know, and that's saying a lot. He is undoubtedly the superior mind in this match-up. But the problem is, the debate (such as it will be) is at the Creation Museum. There are only 900 seats in their auditorium and I'm pretty sure most of them will be filled by Ham's acolytes. The ticket money will go to Ham. That annoys me -- it should go to charity. But the Museum isn't doing very well and Ham is using this as a publicity stunt. He will not play by the rules, mark my words. And, even if he does, his crowd will shout Bill down.

The worst thing about it is that, by debating with someone who is so scientifically ignorant, it lends credence to those ignorant views. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not optimistic.

I know Bill Nye. My husband worked with him at KCTS. He's one of the smartest people we know, and that's saying a lot. He is undoubtedly the superior mind in this match-up. But the problem is, the debate (such as it will be) is at the Creation Museum. There are only 900 seats in their auditorium and I'm pretty sure most of them will be filled by Ham's acolytes. The ticket money will go to Ham. That annoys me -- it should go to charity. But the Museum isn't doing very well and Ham is using this as a publicity stunt. He will not play by the rules, mark my words. And, even if he does, his crowd will shout Bill down.

The worst thing about it is that, by debating with someone who is so scientifically ignorant, it lends credence to those ignorant views. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not optimistic.

If you actually add up the dates in the OT, it is like 13 thousand years or something. I wrote a paper for Religion vs. Science class my last semester of college and compared Young Earth Creationism to Evolutionary Theory in its infancy. There are many creationist who believe everything that Evolution teaches, only that there is direction and progression within evolution - - evolution basically alludes to our being here as a random instance, not seeking spirituality as a way to explain why evolution was set in motion.
Old Earth Creationist use this ideology that the "days" in the Genesis story are actually measurements of time, and there is also the theory that there was a great amount of time between "Day" 1 and "Day" 2. My dad is a young Earth Creationist, and he believes that Henry Morris - - the best known Creationist Scientist/writer - - has completely blown the top off of evolution with his writings of "The Genesis Flood." Morris actually never really gets around to crushing evolutionary theory like my father believes, most of his evidence is Biblical scripture.

You also have many other spirituality out there ranging all the way up to evolutionary theism. I consider myself not really evolutionary theism, not old or new earth creationist either. I am a moderate, so to speak. I know very little about basic biology and science, but enough to not be a complete buffoon. I seek the Bible as my Religious Text, I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church, but I am still considered a very liberal spirituality within the realm of Christianity. I see creation everywhere I look, and I see it in evolution. But that is a predisposition that I have. Maybe someone else does not see God in evolution, but I actually believe evolution to be THE process God used to create what we know as our world today. I have never, even from childhood, thought that the Earth could be 6,000 years old, just never bought it for some reason. And it is very irrelevant to my faith, and to Jesus Christ being my savior.

Also, I have been to the Creation Museum. They cite no Scientific theories or evidence outside of biblical scripture to support their beliefs. I walked away utterly unimpressed as a 13 years old boy. I wanted to see if they could convince me to believe them at the time.

“on the road halfway between faith and criticism stands the inn of reason. reason is faith in what can be understood without faith, but it's still a faith, since to understand presupposes that there's something understandable.” Fernando Pessoa, The Book of Disquiet

I recall writing a paper on an assigned reading schedule in a Physical Science college course. In each of the four or five essays I read I noted the use of the phrase assuming that, or it might could be, or variations. The essays had to to with evolutionary theory. When it was all said and done, for whatever reason, a reason I've since forgot, I talked with the professor about my paper...(a semester or two previous, I had a composition professor mark my first essay, "E, too slickly professional"...so I rewrote it complete with run-on sentences and the like)...I wish I could remember why I talked with him about the paper...I don't believe it was a grade I thought unfair. At any rate, as he stood there bouncing a piece of chalk in his cupped hand, he said, "Well it's better than anything you got."

I tried hard not to smile, tried not to laugh...I must have looked away from him and looking back I believe I was smiling...and then he tilts his head and says, "But yeah-- You're right..." I don't recall the rest of his words, but he agreed with the point I was trying to make--that even science doesn't know all the answers.

I've grown weary of the attitude of some who belittle those whose faith includes a God who created the day and the night, the land and the water. Anymore, it seems that that is the point of these so-called debates, and now we're persuaded that anyone who disagrees with the mantra is a hater. Why not go full-bore and call them heretics, burn them at the stake of science? In the end, I liken those whose attitude seems to be...bash religion...to little boys who are still spraying spittle from their lips because Mommy made them attend Sunday School.

He was kinda general in the video, basically just critical of people without open minds, he didn't really address human evolution.

I forgot to quote Flake's last post before I replied and don't know how to add a quote in an edit

Click to expand...

NBNP, evolution is a theory, but it is a scientific theory, meaning it isn't guesswork (as is the popular meaning of that word)--there is verifiable evidence and solid legwork and thought behind it. I can't remember which prof told me this, but I remember hearing in uni that most of science is theoretical--it can't be 'proven' with one undeniable point because things and the way we understand them are always changing.

The earth has been around a lot longer than creationists say. I am a Christian but I have a big problem with the Adam and Eve story.

Click to expand...

I've always sort of seen them as two people representative of the first generation of beings who are truly like us (homo erectus vs. cro-magnon and the like). Doesn't mean that nothing came before them or that they were literally the first people on this planet (otherwise, who the heck are the other people Cain runs away to? Who did he marry?). My church teaches that a lot of the bible, especially the Old Testament, is meant allegorically, or at least told in stories to teach a specific point, and everything is not to be taken as literal truth. I can get behind that. The order of evolution follows the order of creation, as well--I don't see that as coincidence.

I don't see how, or why, a religious belief would be used to explain something scientific, and act as a scientific authority. This would be like a Chinese person telling me how to be a good American.

I mean, who ever said religious systems are meant to cover all situations anyway? Oh wait, a few loudmouthed so-called "religious authorities". Even loudmouthed science authorities won't admit they know everything.

If people want to pray to supernatural beings I have no problems with that, especially when there's nothing else that can be done. But if your car breaks down a mile from the nearest garage, you better get out and walk, not just pray for help. (That's my rough analogy for "The Lord helps those who help themselves").

I agree with those who say they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. If you believe that God created everything then he created the brain that led us to the theory of evolution being the most widely accepted and successfully tested theory of the origin of species. Coming up with scientific theories as explanations are just another amazing thing that humans have done with the tools provided to us--whether through genetic birth or divinity. You can believe in evolution and God! It doesn't make you a bad person if you go beyond creationism! And there's still plenty of room for God in science too! It doesn't make you a bad scientist if you believe in God. But it does make you a questionable scientist if you believe in the literal Biblical wording (not that there's just one Bible, either) as answers to scientific questions.

I don't see how, or why, a religious belief would be used to explain something scientific, and act as a scientific authority. This would be like a Chinese person telling me how to be a good American.

I mean, who ever said religious systems are meant to cover all situations anyway? Oh wait, a few loudmouthed so-called "religious authorities". Even loudmouthed science authorities won't admit they know everything.

If people want to pray to supernatural beings I have no problems with that, especially when there's nothing else that can be done. But if your car breaks down a mile from the nearest garage, you better get out and walk, not just pray for help. (That's my rough analogy for "The Lord helps those who help themselves").

I agree with those who say they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. If you believe that God created everything then he created the brain that led us to the theory of evolution being the most widely accepted and successfully tested theory of the origin of species. Coming up with scientific theories as explanations are just another amazing thing that humans have done with the tools provided to us--whether through genetic birth or divinity. You can have it both ways, creationists! And there's still plenty of room for God in science too!